Not all the facts lead to Oswald

Carmine Savastano wrote:1.  "Here, everything pointed toward Oswald's guilt. All the physical evidence, all the scientific evidence. Everything he said, everything he did...Only in a fantasy world can you have 53 pieces of evidence pointing toward guilt and still be innocent." (Vincent Bugliosi)

            Bugliosi's first assertion is incorrect. Not all the physical and scientific evidence clearly incriminates Oswald. All the original medical evidence at Parkland hospital disputes the later determinations of the President's Warren Commission.i This implies a separate gunman to account for some original wounds, not Oswald. Some important pieces of physical and scientific evidence are contradictory. Bugliosi seems to have issue with any doubting the Commission's findings. The official record contains repeated authorities and evidence disputing the President's (Warren) Commission. These "conspiracy theorists" include members of the President's (Warren) Commission.ii iii iv Thus, Bugliosi is not considering all the evidence.

2. "Oswald's Mannlicher Carcano rifle was the murder weapon. That's pretty heavy by itself." (Vincent Bugliosi)

Owning a weapon does not conclusively prove the owner subsequently used it. Without a legal trial, this is mere contention from Bugliosi. Yet members of the Dallas Police instead contended the weapon was a Mauser rifle, not a Carcano. While this does not conclusively prove the weapon was a Mauser, it creates doubt and the shadows of incompetence or alteration. v The "murder" weapon, the Carcano, additionally has problematic distinctions. Among them is a rusty firing pin, metal shims necessary for proper sighting of the scope, and the supplier states it was defective.vi vii

3. "Oswald was the only employee at the Book Depository Building who fled the building after the Assassination." (Vincent Bugliosi)

Oswald was one of dozens of employees not initially accounted for. Just after the assassination Oswald did not flee, he bought a soda in the Depository lunchroom. Perhaps Bugliosi meant subsequent to that point. Oswald just needed a drink before he fled apparently. If Oswald was fleeing after he left the Depository, why did he never board a train, bus, or cab out of Dallas? Instead, he boarded a bus,cab, and remained in the city. Officially, he retrieves his pistol and murders Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit. Yet this is not a man fleeing from a desperate act as Bugliosi subsequently contends. The entire point of fleeing is to escape.

4. " That murder bore the signature of a man in desperate flight from some awful deed. Thirty minutes later at a Texas theater he resists arrest, pulls a gun. During his interrogation Oswald told one provable lie after another"(Vincent Bugliosi)

After he allegedly kills Officer Tippit, Oswald does not take the car. Oswald runs away. Despite Oswald's alleged motivation of "fleeing", he never makes a single reasonable attempt to escape Dallas. He "flees" around Dallas and then absconds to a movie theater. As Bugliosi states, Oswald resisted arrest and was armed.
 However, Oswald does not fire into the crowd or take a hostage as a desperate man might. If Oswald murdered JD Tippit in cold blood, why did he not immediately shoot the arresting officers when they enter the theater? I agree with Bugliosi that Oswald lied repeatedly. This only proves he lied.

5. ...but no one is ever going to know for sure why Oswald killed Kennedy... He had been a failure everywhere. He was a failure in the Marines, [and] he was court-martialed. He was a failure with Marina, his wife. He had been a failure all of his life, and all of sudden now he had done something successfully..." (Vincent Bugliosi)

I disagree. With each modern declassification, the truth gains power. In time, the agendas of both critic and advocate are discredited or affirmed. To call Oswald a failure ignores the exceptional things he did. He was able to gain security clearance while professing Marxist beliefs. Only years after the Red scare this "Communist" receives military radar secrets. Oswald then defects from the United States. He states at the American Embassy that he intends to offer all military secrets to the Soviet Union. Embassy security does not seize him. Oswald is allowed to leave. After his long stay in Russia as a traitor, he receives a loan by the American State Department to return with his Russian wife.Oswald's activities are exceptionally suspicious and not the work of a mere failure. He somehow remains free despite his intent to betray the United States. Bugliosi additionally fails to account for the subsequent exceptional shooting in Dealey Plaza. It was exceptional because Oswald had not practiced for months. Without practice, how did he make the shots? viii ix


6. "All these theories and beliefs have turned out to be "moonshine." I am convinced beyond all doubt that Oswald killed Kennedy. I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no conspiracy. The Warren Commission and the FBI conducted a thorough investigation, and found no evidence that Ruby was ever a member of organized crime, or had any association with them....he (Jack Ruby) also liked to intimate that he had mob connections, but they found no evidence he was ever connected with organized crime." (Vincent Bugliosi)

The Warren Commission and the FBI did offer certain conclusions. Modern investigations with additional evidence concluded otherwise. The House Select Committee on Assassinations Report concluded a high probability of conspiracy existed and a possible fourth shot.x Additionally the Committee found the President's (Warren) Commission was deprived of some evidence.Despite Bugliosi's ringing endorsement of the FBI, officials called their investigation "deficient" regarding "organized crime, pro- and anti- Castro Cubans, and the possible associations of individuals from these areas with Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby."xii Other investigations also determined the Central Intelligence Agency investigation failed the Commission as well.

“This evidence indicates that the investigation of the assassination was deficient and that the facts which might have substantially affected the course of the investigation were not provided to the Warren Commission”. They stated “…the CIA inquiry was deficient on the specific question of the significance of Oswald’s contacts”.xiii To claim that the evidence against Oswald is overwhelming is quite inaccurate. Additionally, Jack Ruby did receive multiple calls from Mafia associates shortly before murdering Oswald. xiv In fact, the President's (Warren) Commission itself acted despite the law. It violated the jurisdictional authority of Texas officials. “Legally, the assassination of President Kennedy and the subsequent murder of Lee Harvey Oswald were within the jurisdiction of Texas State Authorities”xv Subsequently, Texas authorities eventually relented to federal jurisdiction. Yet due to Oswald's murder before trial, legally, he is presumed innocent. For all the condemnation and speculation, critics have not addressed these enduring official inconsistencies.   

Sincerely,
C. A. A. Savastano                                                                       

i Hearings of the President's Commission Volume VI, Dr. Paul Peters, Dr. Charles Carrico,  Dr. Robert McClelland, Dr. Malcolm Perry, Dr. Ronald Jones, Dr. Marion Jenkins, Dr. William Clark, Dr. Don Curtis, Dr. Gene Akin, Dr, Kenneth Salyer, Dr. Charles Baxter, Nurse Diana Bowron, Nurse Pat Hutton.
ii President's Commission Executive Sessions transcript, December 16, 1963, p. 39
iii President's Commission Executive Session transcript, January 21, 1964, p. 20
iv President's Commission Executive Session transcript, January 27, 1964, p. 143
v City of Dallas Municipal Archives, Office of the Secretary, The JFK Collection, Affidavit of Deputy Seymour Weitzman,  Box 2, Folder 1, Document 8, jfk.tx.us
vi Hearings of the President's Commission, Volume XXVI, Commission Exhibit 2974, p. 455
vii Hearings of the President's Commission, Volume XXV, Commission Exhibit 2559, pp. 797-98
vi Report of the President's Commission, Chapter 4, the Assassin, Oswald's rifle Practice Outside the Marines, p. 192
vi Report of the President's Commission, Chapter 4 the Assassin, Ownership and Possession of Assassination Weapon, p. 125
x Report of the House Select Committee, Section I, Part B, subsection 6, p.93
xi Report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, Section 1, Part D, subsection 3, the FBI p.242               
xii Ibid
xiii Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities Report, Book 5, Part 1, Performance of Intelligence Agencies Summary and Findings, p.6
xiv Hearings of the Select Committee on Assassinations, Volume IX, Section V, Possible Associations between Jack Ruby and Organized Crime, Part D, prepared by Howard Shapiro research attorney and Michael Ewing staff researcher pp. 188-96. 
xv Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities Report, Book 5, Part IV, Intelligence Agencies, Summary and Findings, p.45

Hi Carmine and welcome to the forum.

Just on your first point... it got me thinking... how many people found guilty actually have 53 pieces of evidence pointing against them? What would the average number of pieces of evidence be in a murder case?

To put it another way... if this were an ordinary murder case that actually went to trial and 53 pieces of evidence were produced by the prosecution and none of the 53 pieces of evidence were disputed, and no exculpatory evidence was produced by either side... I say the case was a bit too good... a bit too pat... if you get my drift. No case is ever that perfect.

as for Oswald lying - I will, based on Sylvia Meagher's work, disagree. As she pointed out, nearly all that he said was provably true.

AllenLowe wrote:as for Oswald lying - I will, based on Sylvia Meagher's work, disagree. As she pointed out, nearly all that he said was provably true.

Yeah, I have to agree with you, Allen. Any lies were probably down to lies of omission.

Thanks for the welcome. I would not state everything Oswald said was a lie, however I am willing for the sake of debate to admit it is possible. I am willing to give opposing views concessions, especially when the concession does not prove their statements. Hope all are having a good New Year.

Carmine Savastano wrote:Thanks for the welcome. I would not state everything Oswald said was a lie, however I am willing for the sake of debate to admit it is possible. I am willing to give opposing views concessions, especially when the concession does not prove their statements. Hope all are having a good New Year.

A pragmatic approach. Happy New Year to you, too.

I agree. 53 pieces of evidence is massive. From what I can remember from reading other crime books and looking at other cases I would approximate that there is usually 5 - 25ish pieces of evidence against and they are all hotly contested by the defense. Can you imagine how long a trial with 53 pieces of evidence would go for? Each piece picked over with a fine tooth comb and experts for each side. Not to mention the witnesses and everything else that would be added in.
I had never thought about that before. I might do a quick search now and see if there are any general numbers of evidence for a murder case.

Frankie Vegas wrote:I agree. 53 pieces of evidence is massive. From what I can remember from reading other crime books and looking at other cases I would approximate that there is usually 5 - 25ish pieces of evidence against and they are all hotly contested by the defense. Can you imagine how long a trial with 53 pieces of evidence would go for? Each piece picked over with a fine tooth comb and experts for each side. Not to mention the witnesses and everything else that would be added in.
I had never thought about that before. I might do a quick search now and see if there are any general numbers of evidence for a murder case.

Thanks Frankie - I thought about doing it!

Speculation: I don't believe he was killed for fear he would "spill the beans".

I think he was killed because the frame would unravel if he had a half-competent defense team and a trial under the spotlight of the world media...

I tried doing a search but nothing came up. I guess it would be hard information to correlate.
I asked my law student and he said that because there was no hard evidence against Oswald, like an eyeball witness who saw him pull the trigger and then run out with the gun yelling about how he had 'got him' then they threw in all the circumstantials hoping one would stick. My law student said that it's quite often what happens in murder trials with no good evidence. Once it got into the courts a lot of it would of been dismissed as irrelevant.
I so wish we could have had Oswald's trial. It could never have been moved to a part of the country where it would have been fair, but at least some of the evidence would have been turfed and we wouldn't have to be fighting it 50 years later.

I agree so much with your speculation. Ah, the details we would have now if that trial went through!

As far as I'm aware the only things we can assess as true or false Oswald statements are the things that came directly out of his mouth that weekend. In other words the recordings (audio and visual) taken by newsmen as he was being paraded through the corridors at City Hall and during his midnight press conference.  From my perspective, because I believe him innocent of the charges brought against him, I don't hear him telling any lies during these recordings.

Now, if we are instead relying upon assessing his words as described, paraphrased and documented by other people then I have a real problem with that.

Some of the main people we have to rely upon when we assess his words are:

Will Fritz
James Bookhout
Jim Leavelle
Marina Oswald
Ruth Paine
Michael Paine
James Patrick Hosty 

Hardly paragons of telling the truth.

I don't recall Marguerite Oswald testifying that her son was a pathological liar.  But we're not supposed to believe anything the mother said either because she was, well, "crazy."

Shall we believe the Dallas Police Officers and Detectives who accompanied Oswald back to the station in the patrol car when they told us some of the things he allegedly said on the ride to City Hall?  "I hear they fry for murder." "Only takes a second."  And if we agree that Oswald most certainly did not say these ridiculous statements then are we allowed to label all the arresting officers as liars?

The reason the accusation can be made that Oswald told lies is because liars told us he did.

That being said I'm not claiming Oswald was related to George Washington but he was not related to Stan Laurel or Oliver Hardy either.  And to believe that a calculating and successful Presidential assassin would leave that trail of evidence behind is just too stupid to even comprehend.

Orders the rifle using A. J. Hidell but has it delivered to a L. H. Oswald Post Office Box

Leaves behind photos with him posing with the rifle AND wearing the revolver

Makes rifle bag out of TSBD materials

Takes rifle to work that morning in a brown paper bag bumming a lift off a neighbour

Leaves brown paper rifle bag in "snipers nest"** 

Leaves the hulls in the "snipers nest"**

Walks on foot around Dallas and Oak Cliff afterwards

Shoots Tippit *** and leaves trail of revolver shells

Discards "his" jacket under a car near the scene

Keeps the revolver

Draws attention to himself by acting scared and avoiding police cars with sirens blaring that obviously have a destination

Doesn't pay for a ticket at the movie theater even though he's got plenty of cash

Is arrested wearing the assassination shirt even though he's been home and could swap it and dump it

Is arrested with the A. J. Hidell identification in his wallet

And let's not forget the other classic line that the media broadcast claiming he said before he was arrested:

"I got me a President and a cop and I'm gonna get me two more."

** Snipers nest kindly, and conveniently, built for Oswald by his co-workers that morning

*** Shot Tippit in front of people who had some form of relationship with Jack Ruby

"I got me a President and a cop and I'm gonna get me two more."

The real give-away here is that Oswald never spoke like an Okie from Muskogee.

Frankie Vegas wrote:
I asked my law student and he said that because there was no hard evidence against Oswald, like an eyeball witness who saw him pull the trigger and then run out with the gun yelling about how he had 'got him' then they threw in all the circumstantials hoping one would stick. 

I so wish we could have had Oswald's trial. 

Which is why we were treated to the bullshit statements from the arresting officers about the misfiring weapon, his resisting arrest and the "this is it" "it's all over now" hooey.

Oswald, at a trial that was never going to happen, would have had the likes of Nick McDonald, Gerald Hill, Paul Bentley, and Bob Barrett testifying against him.  All upright and good standing members of Dallas Law Enforcement and the FBI.

And speaking of Bob Barrett let's not forget the line he said he heard Oswald SHOUTING all over the theater:

I agree Frankie and Greg. The huge amount of legal inconsistency, suppression of evidence, and obvious repeated incompetence would have likely allowed Oswald to walk. The truth I believe is a mixture of the conclusive evidence all sides gather. I critique unproven contentions, and some people take this personally. I believe in constructive (if a bit excessive at times) criticism, especially about issues of historical importance.

Oswald told investigators he didn't own a rifle, never brought curtain rods to work, had not visited Mexico City.

The weight of the evidence seems to suggest that Oswald lied about not owning a rifle

No one besides Wesley Frazier claims to have heard Lee mention anything about Curtain Rods so it may or may not have been a lie

While I think the evidence that someone impersonated Lee in Mexico City is strong, it does appear that he did in fact visit MC.

It seems clear that Lee lied about some things in his interrogation but I'm open to any information that counters my view

Lee never owned any rifle. Lee never received or signed and or paid for any weapons.

Lee may have visited Mexico, but did not visit any Mexico City Embassies and was never photographed doing such. Tapes are not of Lee's voice.

Notes from interrogation by Fritz were made after the fact to bolster claims DPD made. Bookouts notes are spotty and out of or lack context. How can anyone say he lied when we don't really know what what was said?
Tape recorder or steno would prove DPD lied not Lee.

Curtain rods were found in Paine Garage.

Would not the "white" jacket have some blood on it?
Jacket found under car had ZERO blood splatter on it.
When I posed this to Sherry Fiester she agreed the coup de grâce would have back splatter on sleeve of jacket.

How you like those apples!
~Ed

capone81 wrote:Oswald told investigators he didn't own a rifle, never brought curtain rods to work, had not visited Mexico City.

The weight of the evidence seems to suggest that Oswald lied about not owning a rifle

No one besides Wesley Frazier claims to have heard Lee mention anything about Curtain Rods so it may or may not have been a lie

While I think the evidence that someone impersonated Lee in Mexico City is strong, it does appear that he did in fact visit MC.

It seems clear that Lee lied about some things in his interrogation but I'm open to any information that counters my view

The rifle ownership is hotly disputed because of the evidence.

Other employees say they heard it was Venetian Blinds. Interrogators say Oswald said it was his lunch. 

So you think Oswald was both in MC AND impersonated while he was there?  IMO, the evidence is unimpeachable that someone else was using his name in MC (I don't believe "impersonate" is quite the right word when there was no effort made to look like him). IMO, the evidence is almost non-existent that he was in MC himself. Bus witness Pamela Mumford's testimony itself proves she was "mistaken". Beyond that, there is bugger all except a hotel register under the name "Lee, Harvey Oswald" and travel records in the name of HO Lee.

greg parker wrote:

So you think Oswald was both in MC AND impersonated while he was there?  IMO, the evidence is unimpeachable that someone else was using his name in MC (I don't believe "impersonate" is quite the right word when there was no effort made to look like him). IMO, the evidence is almost non-existent that he was in MC himself. Bus witness Pamela Mumford's testimony itself proves she was "mistaken". Beyond that, there is bugger all except a hotel register under the name "Lee, Harvey Oswald" and travel records in the name of HO Lee.

I agree with you, Greg.  Plus, 1) if there were a photo of Oswald from CIA production from Soviet Embassy, Cuban Embassy or Cuban Consulate, why has it not turned up? 2) consulate employees did not recognize photos of the real Oswald; 3) Duran’s name is printed in Oswald’s notebook; 4) there is no bus manifest for Oswald’s trip; 5) there are no fingerprints on Oswald’s tourist card.

The claim has been made that Oswald's photo on the visa application and his FPCC card proves he was there.  But I think that if Nagell could have a copy of the Hidell card and also the selective service card, why couldn't the person posing as Oswald also have obtained/forged them?

Albert Rossi wrote:I agree with you, Greg.  Plus, 1) if there were a photo of Oswald from CIA production from Soviet Embassy, Cuban Embassy or Cuban Consulate, why has it not turned up? 2) consulate employees did not recognize photos of the real Oswald; 3) Duran’s name is printed in Oswald’s notebook; 4) there is no bus manifest for Oswald’s trip; 5) there are no fingerprints on Oswald’s tourist card.

The claim has been made that Oswald's photo on the visa application and his FPCC card proves he was there.  But I think that if Nagell could have a copy of the Hidell card and also the selective service card, why couldn't the person posing as Oswald also have obtained/forged them?

Albert, the CIA had assets inside those foreign embassies and the CIA was adept at "backstopping" false claims. 

You talked about being "bested" in another thread. I got "bested" by Lee discussing who was going to tackle MC in our book. I suggested whoever did it should write it up using stick figures and hieroglyphics. It didn't take Lee long to shoot back with an idea for a book promotion. The first 25 purchasers get one of us coming around to their home and re-enacting the MC scenario in mime form.

Luckily Lee is not in PR    


There is something going on with the whole thing that no one has yet to finger.

Lee, Harvey Oswald
HO Lee
OH Lee
Herbert Lee

I am still undecided if "Harvey Lee Oswald" of Revill's list also belongs on this list. My feeling at the moment is that it doesn't.

If this is all supposed to be Lee Harvey Oswald, then we are expected to believe he called himself "Harvey Oswald Lee" in MC (except when visiting embassies, in which case, he used his real name), then on his return to Dallas, got a room in his correct name at 621 Marselis, and then left there and got a room on N Beckley under the name "OH Lee" where a "H Lee" already resided before giving his number to his wife in case she needed to talk to him, but failing to tell her he was not known there as Lee Oswald" but as "Mr Lee". 

Every single story ever told about Lee Oswald is nonsensical crap.

That's it's held together for 50 years is the most remarkable feat in human history.

... and of course, let's not forget "Lee Henry [sic] Oswald", as per the cable from Elsie Scaleti, complete, in the Mexico City Station copy, with Win Scott's "sic" ...

Albert Rossi wrote:... and of course, let's not forget "Lee Henry [sic] Oswald", as per the cable from Elsie Scaleti, complete, in the Mexico City Station copy, with Win Scott's "sic" ...

Albert,

I deliberately left that one off - not because it's unimportant (I believe it is) - but because I don't think it "relates" to these others which all simply switch Oswalds 3 manes around. There is something going on with that, which remains elusive.

greg parker wrote:

capone81 wrote:Oswald told investigators he didn't own a rifle, never brought curtain rods to work, had not visited Mexico City.

The weight of the evidence seems to suggest that Oswald lied about not owning a rifle

No one besides Wesley Frazier claims to have heard Lee mention anything about Curtain Rods so it may or may not have been a lie

While I think the evidence that someone impersonated Lee in Mexico City is strong, it does appear that he did in fact visit MC.

It seems clear that Lee lied about some things in his interrogation but I'm open to any information that counters my view

The rifle ownership is hotly disputed because of the evidence.

Other employees say they heard it was Venetian Blinds. Interrogators say Oswald said it was his lunch. 

So you think Oswald was both in MC AND impersonated while he was there?  IMO, the evidence is unimpeachable that someone else was using his name in MC (I don't believe "impersonate" is quite the right word when there was no effort made to look like him). IMO, the evidence is almost non-existent that he was in MC himself. Bus witness Pamela Mumford's testimony itself proves she was "mistaken". Beyond that, there is bugger all except a hotel register under the name "Lee, Harvey Oswald" and travel records in the name of HO Lee.

I'm aware of the problems with the rifle purchase. Still, between the backyard photos and Marina telling the police that Oswald kept his rifle in Ruth Paine's garage(even with her credibility problems), it seems likely that Oswald did own a rifle even if it wasn't the same as the rifle found in TSBD. 

I don't know what to make of the Curtain Rods story. Either Frazier or Oswald could've lied. 

Oswald allegedly confirmed that he had visited MC in his last interview before he was murdered. 

"It didn't cost much to go to Mexico. It cost me some $26, a small, ridiculous amount to eat, and another ridiculous small amount to stay all night. . . . I went to the Mexican Embassy to try to get this permission to go to Russia by way of Cuba. . . . I went to the Mexican Consulate in Mexico City. I went to the Russian Embassy to go to Russia by way of Cuba. They told me to come back in `thirty days.'"
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html

From your link:

Saturday 10:30 A.M.-1:10 P.M.   Interrogation, Capt. Will Fritz's Office "I am familiar with all types of questioning and have no intention of making any statements."

Saturday 2:15 P.M.   Lineup for Witnesses William W. Scoggins and William Whaley: "I refuse to answer questions"


Saturday 6:00 - 6:30 P.M.   Interrogation, Captain Fritz's Office:  "In time I will be able to show you that this is not my picture, but I don't want to answer any more questions."  


Sunday 9:30 - 11:15 A.M., SUNDAY MORNING, NOV. 24,1963   Interrogation in Capt. Will Fritz's Office after "admitting" to being in MC: It might not be proper to answer further questions, because what I say might be construed in a different light than what I actually meant it to be.

11:15 A.M.   Inspector Thomas J. Kelley, U.S. Secret Service, Has Final Conversation with Lee Harvey Oswald

          Kelley approached Oswald, out of the hearing of others, except perhaps Captain Fritz's men, and said that as a Secret Service agent, he was anxious to talk with him as soon as he secured counsel, because Oswald was charged with the assassination of the President but had denied it. Oswald said, "I will be glad to discuss this proposition with my attorney, and that after I talk with one, we could either discuss it with him or discuss it with my attorney, if the attorney thinks it is a wise thing to do, but at the present time I have nothing more to say to you."

11:21 A.M. Lee Harvey Oswald Was Fatally Wounded by Jack Ruby

----------------------

So from at least Saturday, Oswald is saying repeatedly he doesn't want to answer questions, and in the last session, expresses fear that anything he says may be misconstrued. He agrees however to talk to an attorney to find out if it would be wise to talk to the Secret Service. He's dead soon after that. 

So in effect, we have someone not wanting to answer questions, scared of being misunderstood and having no attorney, admitting he was in MC - which is a virtual admission that not only is he guilty but that it was a commie conspiracy because the feds have him meeting with the chief of soviet mayhem and assassinations.

A guilty Oswald makes no such admission.

An innocent Oswald who was actually in MC admits that he was there the first time he is asked.

An innocent Oswald who has never been to MC makes no such admission that he was.

Authorities wanting to pin the crime on Oswald may be motivated to change an admission he was in Mexico WHILE ON LEAVE FROM THE MARINES years ago into an admission he was in MC in Sep '63.

Greg,
I totally agree that Oswald's statements could've been altered since they weren't recorded.

His final interview moments before he was shot is very suspicious because he seemed to contradict much of his original alibi and earlier statements .

Still, he never admitted to recieving a rifle at his PO Box.

greg parker wrote:

Albert Rossi wrote:... and of course, let's not forget "Lee Henry [sic] Oswald", as per the cable from Elsie Scaleti, complete, in the Mexico City Station copy, with Win Scott's "sic" ...

Albert,

I deliberately left that one off - not because it's unimportant (I believe it is) - but because I don't think it "relates" to these others which all simply switch Oswalds 3 manes around. There is something going on with that, which remains elusive.

I had suspected that you felt this alias was of a different order -- and of course, it is, because of where it originates (aside from the fact it is not a simple permutation).